LD 5323 
.ft SI 




Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



<~ \ 



' 



■ 



LD 5333 
.A52 
Copy 1 






FERGUSON'S WAR 



ON THE 



UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 



A CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE 



January 12, 1915, to July 31, 1917, Inclusive 




Published by Ex-Students Association of the 
University of Texas 



h4> 



Q m Of D« 

JAH 3 1918 



•3 

<L CONTENTS. 

Page. 

I. Historical Summary, January, 1-915-October, 1916. 

1. The Governor's misunderstanding with Dr. Battle 5 

a. The Governor's attack 6 

b. Dr. Battle's explanation 6 

2. The election of President Vinson . 7 

3. The Governor's first demand for dismissal of faculty mem- 

members 7 

a. The Governor demands Regent Faber's resignation. . . 7 

b. The Regents investigate the Governor's charges 8 

II. Historical Summary, November, 1916-June, 1917. 

1. Resignation of Regent Faber and the Governor's comment 9 

2. The Governor intimates that the University is autocratic 

and unfriendly to common schools 9 

3. The speech from the throne 10 

4. The contest over confirmation of Regents 11 

a. Senator Lattimore asks for investigation of the Uni- 

versity 11 

b. Also for investigation of the nominees 11 

c. University faculty petitions for investigation 12 

5. The Johnson resolution for investigation of the Governor. . 12 

a. The University not an issue in the resolution 13 

b. The Governor's answer to Senator Johnson 13 

c. The Governor's misrepresentation of the University. . 14 

d. Johnson resolution tabled 15 

6. The Page-Dayton-Henderson report 15 

a. Ferguson declares that the Regents have sole author- 
ity to control University . . 16 

7. The O'Banion resolution for investigation of Governor 16 

a. The Governor replies 17 

b. The O'Banion resolution tabled 17 

8. The Dayton substitute for the Lattimore resolution intro- 

duced 17 

9. Representative Davis' charges against the Governor 18 

a. The Governor's counter-charges against the University 19 

b. The faculty renews request for investigation of the 

University 20 

10. The House sustains the Davis charges, but votes against 

impeachment 20 

11. The Dayton resolution passed, and Regents confirmed 20 

III. Historical Summary, May 27-June 5. 

1. The Governor calls conference of Regents 22 

a. Faculty address to Regents 22 

b. The press on the Governor's action 22 

c. The student parade 22 

2. Changes on the Board of Regents. . . 23 

a. The Hornsby injunction 23 

b. The Lomax injunction 2 3 

c. More changes on the Board 24 



4 Ferguson's War on the University. 

Page. 

3. Lomax and Vinson refuse to resign 24 

4. The veto message 24 

5. The facts of the case 26 

a. Cost of education at the University of Texas 26 

b. Concerning President Vinson 26 

c. Concerning fraternities 27 

d. Faculty leaves of absence 27 

e. Working hours of professors 28 

f. Minor matters 28 

g. Faculty desires independence of Regents 28 

h. Student parade a student affair 29 

i. The effect of the Lomax injunction 29 

j. Faculty not opposed to common schools. . . . 29 

k. University not a rich man's school 30 

IV. Historical Summary, June 5-June 20. 

1. Negotiations between Regents and Ex-Students' Association 31 

2. The veto is slightly modified 32 

3. State mass meeting at Austin 32 

4. The veto invalid 32 

5. The injunction cases in court. 33 

6. The State mass meeting at Dallas 33 

7. Address of Ex-Students' Association. 34 

8. The Governor's vilification of the University 34 

a. Speech at Kerrville — disloyalty 34 

b. Speech at Abilene — opposed to common schools 35 

c. Speech at Haskell — high treason 37 

d. Speech at Sweetwater, Hamlin and Snyder 37 

e. Speech at Lubbock 37. 

f. Speech at Plainview " 38 

g. The Governor's promise to continue the crusade 

against the University 38 

h. Speeches at Valley Mills, Austin, and Walnut Springs 39 

V. Historical Summary, July 3- July 14. 

1. Judge Graves dismisses the Lomax injunction 40 

a. Statement of the Lomax attorneys 40 

2. % The Regents at Galveston 41 

a. Injunctions against Ward and Fly and in favor of 

Jones 41 

b. Dismissal of faculty members 42 

VI. Historical Summary, July 14- July 31. 

1. Speaker calls House to impeach Governor 43 

a. West Texas A. & M. Trouble 44 

2. Governor indicted by Travis County grand jury 46 

3. Judge F. A. Williams and others on the legality of speaker's 

call 46 

a. The Attorney General concurs 46 

b. Quorum assured 46 

4. Governor calls special session 46 

5. Mr. Hogg's statement 47 



I. HISTORICAL SUMMARY, JANUARY, 1915-OCTOBER, 1916. 

Governor Ferguson was inaugurated on January 12, 1915. Three 
vacancies existed in the Board of Regents on account of expired 
terms, and to fill these places, he nominated, and the Senate ap- 
pointed, Dr. S. J. Jones, Rabbi M. Faber, and Dr. G. S. McReynolds. 

1. The Ferguson-Battle Misunderstanding. 

The Thirty-fourth Legislature made liberal appropriations for the 
University, and, after conferences with individual Regents and with 
Acting President W. J. Battle, Governor Ferguson signed the Uni- 
versity appropriation bill unchanged. This bill was itemized, as 
previous bills had been, and the items were arranged in six groups r 
(1) Salaries, (2) Schools and Laboratories, Main University, (3) 
Schools and Laboratories, Medical Department, (4) Current Ex- 
penses, (5) Bureau of Economic Geology and Technology, (6) De- 
partment of Extension and Summer Schools. The caption of the 
University section of the bill declared that the appropriations were 
made "with such changes and substitutions within the total of the 
following items for the University as the Regents may find neces- 
sary." The bill contained no contingent item, and "changes and 
substitutions ' ' would be necessary in actual administration to give a 
measure of flexibility and allow for unforeseen developments and 
changing conditions of the next two years. 

"When the Comptroller came to enter the University appropriation 
upon his books, he was of the opinion that every item — there were 
several hundred of them — should be represented. This would inter- 
fere with necessary ' ' changes and substitutions ; ' ' and President Bat- 
tle suggested that the appropriation should be entered as a lump 
sum. Previous bills had been itemized by the Legislature and 
lumped by the Comptroller. President Battle asked the Attorney 
General for an interpretation of this feature of the law, and pointed 
out what had been the previous practice. The Attorney General 
ruled that the itemization might be lumped, and expended at the 
discretion of the Regents. 

There was some discussion at the time as to whether that had 
been the intention of the Legislature when the appropriation was 
passed, and a few members of the Legislature expressed themselves 
in letters to the press. Several of these said that they had under- 
stood "changes and substitutions" to be restricted within the sev- 



6 Ferguson's War on the University. 

eral groups of items and not to permit the transfer of an item under 
"salaries," for example, to the "Schools and Laboratories" group. 
The vast majority of members did not express themselves. 

a. The Governor's Attack. 

President Battle's letter to the Attorney General and the Attor- 
ney General's reply thereto were published in the daily papers. 
About the same time the Auditor of the University died, after a 
lingering illness, and after most efficient service of nearly fifteen 
years. A few days later, on August 18, 1915, Governor Ferguson 
wrote to the Regents, and gave to the press of the state, a violent 
letter denouncing President Battle as guilty of "sharp practice in a 
most culpable degree," "unworthy of the position which he holds," 
and declaring that he "should not be allowed in any manner to 
expend any of the money provided by the Legislature for the main- 
tenance of the University." Continuing, he said, "In this connec- 
tion I desire to call your special attention to the need of appointing 
an auditor of known experience and ability, not heretofore affiliated 
with the University in any way, who in the future in the absence 
of the Board of Regents, should carefully scrutinize and see that no 
voucher is issued or money paid other than in strict accordance with 
the provisions and terms of the appropriation bill." 

[In passing" it cannot be too strongly emphasized, (1) that no 
money ever has been paid out by the University except on sworn 
vouchers "in strict accordance with the provisions and terms of the 
appropriation bill." (2) That detailed financial reports have been 
published by the Regents every two years since the establishment 
of the institution, showing every penny spent by the University and 
what it was spent for. These reports are available in the University 
Library.] 

b. Dr. Battle's Explanation. 

To this attack on his personal integrity Dr. Battle made no public 
reply, but on September 11, 1915, he made to the Regents a very 
complete explanation and refutation of the Governor's charges. 
(See copy in Investigation by the Board of Regents . . . etc., pages 
159-170. An answer from Dr. Battle to the main charges raised by 
the Governor appeared in the daily papers of Sunday, July 29.) 



A Chronological Outline. 7 

2. The Election of President Vinson. 

On October 26, 1915, Acting President Battle addressed a letter 
to the Board of Regents, then in regular session, asking them not 
to consider him in the election of a president of the University. 
The Board, thereupon, did not elect him, but continued him as Act- 
ing President. 

At this meeting the Board elected an auditor, previously active 
in politics, and "not heretofore affiliated with the University in any 
way." 

In April, 1916, the Regents, without previous conference with 
the Governor, unanimously elected Dr. R. E. Vinson President of 
the University. To some of the Regents the Governor expressed 
the opinion that he should have been consulted in the election to 
such an important office. 

3. The Governor's First Demand for Dismissal of Faculty Members. 

Some time after his election, President. Vinson, accompanied by 
Major George W. Littlefield, one of the Regents, called on the Gov- 
ernor. The Governor named six members of the faculty and said 
that they must be discharged, but gave no reasons. Subsequently 
he declared to a member of the Board of Regents, "I am the Gov- 
ernor of Texas; I don't have to give reasons." 

President Vinson was led to believe by a mutual friend of the 
University's and the Governor's that the Governor would not press 
his demand for the dismissal of the six faculty members, and the 
matter rested unchanged until September, 1916. Learning then 
that the Governor's intention remained unchanged, President Vinson 
on September 5, wrote to ask upon what ground he wished these 
men discharged. He replied on September 9, "I emphatically deny 
that I ever indicated or intimated that I wanted to make any charges 
against any body; and I told you then and there the names of the 
members of the faculty whom I thought objectionable, and I have 
not changed my mind." 

a. The Governor Demands Regent Faber's Resignation. 

Two days later on September 11, Governor Ferguson wrote to Rabbi 
Faber saying, "Unless I may be assured of your full and complete 
co-operation, I will much appreciate your sending to me at once your 
resignation as a member of the Board of Regents under my appoint- 
ment. You can rest assured that I have nothing against you per- 



8 Ferguson 's War on the University. 

sonally, but the time has come when I must know who is for me and 
who is against me." To this Rabbi Faber replied on September 20. 
He said he took the oath of office as Regent to serve the State "to 
the best of my ability and according to the dictates of my own con- 
science. I never dreamed that such an appointment has any polit- 
ical significance; nor that the appointee is expected to be a mere 
marionette to move and act as and when the chief executive pushes 
the button or pulls the string. ... I cannot give you the assur- 
ance of my 'full and complete co-operation' with your avowed plans 
concerning the internal affairs of the University of Texas without a 
thorough investigation into the merits of each individual case. I ca'n 
not pledge myself to follow the arbitrary will of any person, no mat- 
ter how high and exalted, without being convinced of the justice of 
his demands. In my humble opinion, such action Avould disorganize 
and disrupt the University, the just pride of the people of Texas. 
It will produce untold harm to the cause of higher education and 
practically destroy the labors of a generation to bring up the Uni- 
versity of Texas to the high rank it now occupies among the univer- 
sities of the land. With all due respect to you, my dear Governor, 
I do not concede to you the right or authority to interfere in the 
internal management of the University of Texas : that is the sole 
business of the Board of Regents and for that purpose they are 
created." On September 25 the Governor replied to Rabbi Faber 
that he did not care to "bandy words" further and would take steps 
to remove him from office if he refused to vote as the Governor 
wished. 

Substantially the same correspondence took place between the Gov- 
ernor and Dr. Jones, who also declined to accept the executive dicta- 
tion. This correspondence has not, however, been published. 

b. The Regents Investigate the Governor's Charges. 

On October 10, 1916, the Governor appeared before a special meet- 
ing of the Regents and filed an oral and written statement against 
the members of the faculty whose dismissal he had demanded. This 
was based principally upon garbled information furnished him by 
the auditor, W. R. Long. Having made his charges, which involved 
political activity, peculation, fraud, and outright theft, he demanded 
the dismissal of the men without a hearing and without an opportu- 
nity to defend their characters. The Board refused to proceed in 
this arbitrary manner, and after an investigation acquitted the ac- 
cused and refused to dismiss them. (A complete stenographic report 
of the investigation was published by the Regents and is available to 
any applicant.) 



n. HISTORICAL SUMMARY, NOVEMBER, 1916, to MAY, 1917. 
1. Regent Faber's Resignation and the Governor's Comment. 

On November 21, some six weeks after the investigation, Rabbi 
Faber resigned: In an interview published in the Dallas News of 
November 25 he explained that the crisis in the affairs of the Univer- 
sity was passed and he was no longer needed. His real reason for re- 
signing was, however, disclosed in the following clause, "as it is dis- 
tasteful to any one to serve where he is persona non grata, I ten- 
dered my resignation. ' ' 

Governor Ferguson's comment on this letter (Austin American, 
November 26, 1917) was that, "as Mr. Faber has stated thai I asked 
him to resign unless he could assure me of his co.-operation in the man- 
agement of the affairs of the University, and as the statement further 
shows that he refused to give me his co-operation, it is unnecessary 
for me to argue the propriety of his tendering me his resignation, be- 
lated though it was." Continuing, he said, "while no successor to 
Mr. Faber has been appointed, whoever he may be you may rest as- 
sured that he can be depended on to co-operate with me to put the 
University of Texas in its proper rank along with similar educational 
institutions of the nation. ' ' 

[Note that Governor Ferguson's conception of "co-operation" 
seems to be abject and unquestioning obedience to his commands. 
There is to be no difference of opinion, no discussion and reasoning 
together. He is the Governor of Texas; he does not have to give 
reasons. 

Note also that the Governor was even then determined to put the 
University of Texas in "its proper rank." So far as his defective 
veto could accomplish that end, h<* performed that feat on June 5, 
1917.] 

The papers of December 3 carried the announcement that the Gov- 
ernor had appointed Mr. W. R. Brents, president of the Commercial 
National Bank of Sherman, to succeed Rabbi Faber. Mr. Brents was 
subsequently confirmed by the Senate, and has ever since utterly 
failed to "co-operate" with the Governor. 

2. The Governor Insinuates That the University Is Autocratic and 
Unfriendly to Common Schools. 

In his 'first message to the Legislature, on January 10, 1917, Gov- 
ernor Ferguson disclaimed being opposed to higher education: "As 



10 Ferguson's War on the University. 

long as higher education remains democratic and does not seek any 
more rights than is guaranteed to the average citizen, then I am for 
higher education. But when higher education becomes either auto- 
cratic or aristocratic in its ways or customs and begins to arrogate to 
itself an unwarranted superiority over the great masses of the people 
who make higher education possible, and wants to rule with a col- 
lege diploma alone, then I am against higher education and I con- 
sider it 'book learnin' gone to seed. 

"I am in favor of liberal appropriations for the support of our 
universities and colleges, but ftr every dollar appropriated for such 
purposes there should be at least three dollars set aside for the aid 
of the high schools in the towns and graded schools in the country." 

[With this statement no friend of the University will quarrel. 
The University has always been, and still is, one of the most demo- 
cratic institutions in the United States. Its student and faculty tone 
is neither autocratic aor aristocratic, but, on the contrary, is strik- 
ingly democratic. 

Moreover, every friend of the University — and this certainly in- 
cludes the faculty, students, and ninety-nine per cent of the ex- 
students — favors most liberal support of city, town, and rural 
schools. Aside from an enlightened desire for the general spread 
of education, they perceive, much more clearly than the Governor 
can possibly do, that the highest development of the University can 
come only through the general diffusion of high school education.] 

3. The Speech from the Throne. 

On Tuesday, January 16, the Governor was inaugurated for his 
second term. His address on that occasion reads strangely like a 
royal speech from. the throne: "In taking the oath just adminis- 
tered, I have by the will and grace of a noble and generous people 
reassumed grave and solemn responsibilities. * * * And in 
return for the preference and generosity thus bestowed by my 
people I shall faithfully," etc. * * * "May I be permitted to 
say that the confidence of my people is dearer to me by far than 
any office with its glamour of temporal power." 

[Compare with this King George's speech from the throne on 
February 7: "My people throughout the empire and my faithful 
and heoric allies. ' ' * # # "My navy has maintained unchallenged 
its ceaseless watch on the seas." * * * "My armies have con- 
ducted successful operations, not only in Europe, but in Egypt, " etc. 
* * * "I invited representatives of my dominions and my Indian 
Empire * * * to confer with my ministers," etc. etc.] 



A Chronological Outline. 11 

4. Contest Over Confirmation of Regents. 

On January 26 the Governor sent to the Senate for confirmation 
as Regents of the University the names of W. P. Allen of Austin, 
J. W. Butler of Clifton, and Dr. D. H. Lawrence of El Paso. They 
were to take the places of Messrs. Hogg, Harrell, and Sanger, whose 
terms had expired. Mr. Allen is a graduate of the University, of 
the class of '99, and Dr. Lawrence is a graduate of the Medical 
Department and was for a time a lecturer in that department. On 
January 29 newspapers of the State predicted a contest in the Senate 
over the appointment of these nominees. A rumor was noticed to 
the effect that if the Senate did confirm them, the new board, with 
six of its nine members appointed by Governor Ferguson would 
"rewganize the University faculty." The same day Senator Wal- 
ter Caldwell, the Governor's friend, announced " authoritatively " 
•that the three nominees would be confirmed without a contest. 
Asked what the new board would then do "with reference to re- 
organization of the faculty," he replied that "he could not even 
hazard a guess." 

a. Senator Lattimore Asks for Investigation of University. 

Contrary to Senator Caldwell's sanguine prophecy, Senator Latti- 
more, on February 8, presented to the Senate a memorial from the 
Central Committee of the Ex-Students ' Association praying that ' ' a 
sufficient investigation be made to remove from the University 
any suspicion or distrust that may have been aroused by the recent 
controversy. ' ' 

b. Also for Investigation of the Nominees. 

He followed this with a resolution asking for the appointment of 
a committee of five to investigate the Governor's nominees, "to 
determine if any such appointees have committed themselves to or 
for the retention or dismissal of any members of the faculty, and 
as to whether or not said nominees have any prejudgment of any 
question heretofore settled by a former Board of Regents, and as 
to whether or not such nominees would attempt to have dismissed 
any members of the faculty upon any charges heretofore investi- 
gated and passed upon by any former board." The resolution goes 
on to say that members of the Senate are informed that one or more 
of the nominees "have already committed themselves to the policy 
of the dismissal of members of the faculty whose removal was de- 



12 Ferguson's War on the. University. 

manded by the Governor, and others because of personal dislike.'' 
Senators Hudspeth, Bee, and Page spoke against the resolution, 
arguing that an investigation would reopen the controversy "be- 
tween the Governor and the Regents, which is now a sealed matter 
and definitely closed." Messrs. Hudspeth and Gibson declared that 
the Governor had told them that "so far as he is concerned, the 
matter has been dropped." After much discussion, the Senate 
adopted a motion to refer the Lattimore resolution to a committee 
of three to determine by a preliminary investigation whether or 
not the resolution should be adopted and a definitive investigation 
ordered. 

c. University Faculty Petitions for Investigation. 

The next day, February 9, the president of the Senate announced 
the appointment of Senators Page, Dayton, and Henderson to make 
the preliminary investigation ; and in its executive session that day 
the Senate postponed consideration of the nominations for Regents 
until after the committee should report. The same day a full meet- 
ing of the faculty adopted, with one dissenting vote, resolutions 
addressed to both houses of the Legislature begging for a full and 
complete investigation of the University: "It is our earnest desire 
that this investigation be thorough; that it be conducted openly 
and in such a manner as to secure complete publicity of the affairs 
of this institution and that it may result in such action upon your 
part as may guarantee to the people of Texas the integrity of their 
University and to the University authorities the confidence of the 
people in their efforts to build and maintain a University of the 
first class." 

5. The Johnson Resolution for Investigation of the Governor. 

The Committee began hearings in executive session on the 12th. 
The deliberations of the committee were interrupted on the 14th 
by an all-day debate in the Senate on resolutions introduced by 
Senator Johnson of Hall County asking an investigation of the Gov- 
ernor. Senator Johnson charged: (1) That the Governor had for 
his own use made illegal expenditures of public funds, some of the 
expenditures being covered by deficiency warrants issued by him- 
self. (2) That he dominated, or was seeking to dominate, the gov- 
erning boards of the state's educational and eleemosynary institu- 
tions by removal and intimidation in order to place personal and 
political friends on their pay rolls — this in the face of a constitu- 



A Chronological Outline. 13 

tional amendment adopted in 1912 extending the term of office of 
such boards to six years and providing for the retirement of one- 
third every two years, for the special purpose of removing the mem- 
bers from political influence. (3) That he had borrowed from the 
Temple State Bank, and now owed, a sum greatly in excess of that 
permitted by the State Banking Laws — $140,000.* The total capital 
and surplus of this bank amounted to only $160,000. (4) That his 
campaign expenses had been paid by "special interests," and hot 
by himself, as he claimed. (5) That in the purchase of a prison 
farm for the State Penitentiary System excessive commissions 
($50,000) were paid to attorneys. (6) That soon after his in- 
auguration he had removed from banks in which it was drawing 
interest a large sum of state money intended for the rebuilding of 
the West Texas Normal and had deposited it in the Temple State 
Bank without interest. 

a. University Had No Part in Johnson Resolution. 

In the discussion to which these charges gave rise, Senator Bailey 
was inspired to ask whether "the recent University controversy 
might not be in a measure responsible for the resolution" of Mr. 
Johnson. He hoped "the friends of the University would disclaim 
all sympathy with the resolution." Mr. Bee attributed the reso- 
lution to "recent political matters." He prayed "the God of our 
fathers that this great institution has not permitted itself to be 
brought into this in any way." M(r;. Lattimore said that "it was 
unfair to the University and to the resolution to bring the Univer- 
sity into the discussion." Senator Johnson declared that he "had 
not conferred with any representatives of the University and that 
the institution was not in any way connected with" his resolution. 
He said it was prompted by "rumors which refused to be downed 
and which have been circulating over the state for two years." 

b. The Governor's Answer to Senator Johnson. 

In a speech from the floor of the Senate the Governor paid no 
attention to the first charge — that he had illegally spent public 
funds for his own use; — and did not directly refer to the sixth — 
the deposit of the West Texas Normal funds in the Temple State 
Bank. He denied the fourth and fifth charges, that "breweries 



*Later investigation disclosed his obligations to this bank to have been 
at one time $170,000. 



14 Ferguson's War on the University. 

had contributed to his campaign fund;" and that graft had ex- 
isted in the purchase of the state farm. He admitted the third 
charge, said it was "not a crime to borrow all the money a bank 
has, as the law is merely directory," the president had told him 
that "the business he produced entitled him to a line of credit in 
any other bank of $300,000." 

[Note (1) transfer of West Texas Normal fund, without interest, 
to this bank. Note (2) transfer of $250,000 from American Na- 
tional Bank of Austin to this bank about May 29, 1917.] 

Concerning the domination of boards (second charge), particularly 
of the Board of Regents, Senator Parr asked the Governor if he had 
"exacted any promises from the men he had nominated to be regents 
of the University that they would remove members of the faculty 
to whom he had made objection." 

"I never talked to Dr. Lawrence about it," said the Governor, 
but I told Mr. Butler and Mr. Allen that I thought these men ought 
to be dismissed ; that I did not want to make a by-trade with anybody 
about it, but wanted them to know my views. ' ' 

c. The Governor's Misrepresentation of the University. 

Turning then to his customary procedure of misrepresentation in 
all matters concerning the University, the Governor declared: (1) 
That the previous legislature had appropriated $350 per capita for 
University students, while "the boys in the country" got only $7 
or $8. (2) That "some had taken the position that neither the Gov- 
ernor nor any one else had the right to inquire what the University 
officials have done with public money." (3) That a "great ma- 
jority of University people, faculty and ex-students, were with him." 
(4) That "the whole thing is that some people here are mad because 
I say that a man shall not pay the expense of his wife out of the money 
of the state." (For explanation of this see the James expense item 
in charges against Battle in Regents Investigation, pp. 32, 81-83. (5) 
That "some people want to raise a row because I do not see fit to 
reappoint Alex Sanger, Will Hogg, and Dave H'arrell. ... If 
the Senate does not agree with me, it is their prerogative to reject my 
nominations, and I will send up other names. I am going to have 
some say about who will be regents." (6) That "the issue is whether 
the people will run this University, or whether it shall be run by a 
few people in Austin. If they are not satisfied with $350 per capita 
for the University of Texas, let them say so and we will give the 
money to the boys and girls in the country schools. ' ' 



A Chronological Outline. 15 

d. Johnson Resolution Tabled. 

After discussion, the Johnson resolution was tabled on the point 
of order that it was really equivalent to the beginning of impeachment 
proceedings, and should therefore originate in the House. The next 
day (February 15) Senator Lattimore introduced two resolutions 
which he consented to table subject to call. The first proposed that 
the Senate should, without recommendation, refer to the House, for 
such action as it pleased to take, the original Johnson resolution. 
The second called for an investigation of Senator Johnson, whose 
sincerity and integrity had been attacked in the debate of the pre- 
vious day. On Saturday, the 17th, Represent'ative O'Banion intro- 
duced in the House a resolution, incorporating the substance of the 
Johnson resolution, calling for an investigation of the Governor. 
These two Lattimore resolutions therefore remained on the table. 

6. The Page-Dayton-Henderson Report. 

On Friday, February 16, the Page-Dayton-Henderson Committee 
made a full report of its preliminary investigation to determine 
whether the Lattimore resolution of the eighth calling for an investi- 
gation of the University should be adopted. A complete transcript 
of the testimony obtained by the committee in its executive sessions 
was reported to the Senate and ordered printed in the .journal of 
that day. In its report the committee declared that the question of 
whether or not the investigation should be ordered was so important 
that it could not assume the responsibility of making a recommenda- 
tion. The Chairman, Mr. Page, went on to say that "the committee 
regards the matter of grave importance, fraught with dire possibili- 
ties for the University of Texas whether or not an investigation is 
decided upon, and that the issue that has arisen is by no means 
settled." The committee had been much disappointed, he said, in 
the hope of reconciling "the views of both sides," and being able to 
"report back to the Senate that an agreement had been reached and 
there would be no need for an investigation." 

The evidence showed that Dr. Lawrence had been recommended to 
the Governor by Dr. Fly, one of the Regents, who for years had been 
trying to secure the dismissal of Dr. J. E. Thompson, Professor of 
Surgery ; that at one time Dr. Fly had made a strong effort to secure 
the appointment of Dr. Lawrence to a professorship in the Medical 
Department; and that Fly and Lawrence agreed in the desire to take 
away from the president the right to recommend the appointment and 
dismissal of faculty members and vest all such authority in the 
Board of Regents. [A procedure that might easily lead to trading.] 



16 Ferguson's War on the University. 

a. Ferguson Declares Regents Have Sole Authority to Control 

University. 

The Governor expressed his views to the committee in a short let- 
ter: "Permit me to say that in my opinion the entire management 
of the University of Texas should be allowed to remain and continue 
within the discretion and judgment and power conferred upon the 
board of regents by the constitution of the State of Texas. 

"The board of regents is the only constituted authority that could 
decide and determine all matters pertaining to the management and 
conduct of the University, and for that reason, in my opinion, it 
would be useless for the Legislature to undertake to inquire into 
the management of the University. . . . 

• "All I ask is that the members of the board of regents who shall 
constitute that board in the future be left as free to exercise their 
constitutional powers as the board of regents has in the past." 

[With the plain and obvious meaning of these words every friend 
of the University heartily agrees. What Governor Ferguson really 
means by a "free" board, however, is one absolutely subservient to 
his arbitrary and despotic will. For proof of this refer to the Faber 
resignation of November 21, the Butler resignation of May 29, the 
McReynolds resignation of May 31, and the attempt at coercion re- 
vealed in the history of the veto and in the Lomax injunction suit 
June 11-15.] 

7. The O'Banion Resolution for Investigation of Governor. 

The next day, Saturday, the 17th, Representative O'Banion offered 
his resolution in the House calling for an investigation of charges 
against the Governor. They were the same as those presented by 
Senator Johnson, except that they omitted the reference to the West 
Texas Normal funds and added the charge that the .Governor had 
caused the State Banking Commissioner to violate his oath of office 
and connive at the Governor's over-loan in the Temple State Bank. 

Monday afternoon the O'Banion resolution came up for discus- 
sion. Mr. O'Banion explained that he did not make the charges 
embodied in his resolution. He hoped they were not true. But they 
had been made by Senator Johnson and, in his opinion, should be 
investigated. The point was raised that since the charges were not 
presented as true, or even believed, by Mr. O'Banion, his resolution 
did not look toward impeachment and should not be considered by the 
House. 



A Chronological Outline. 17 

a. The Governor Replies. 

The Governor was asked to speak, and occupied himself principally 
with his relations with the Temple State Bank. He had borrowed 
$150,000 from the bank. "Why, you ought to be proud of your 
Governor for being able to borrow $150,000." Concerning the Uni- 
versity he said: "I appointed regents who I believed and thought 
and knew are my friends. If you think I've got little enough sense, 
in 'view of what has happened, to appoint regents who are not my 
friends, then you don 't know me. ... I want my friends to help 
me run the Government, and if you want your enemies to help you 
do it, then you haven't got s*ense enough to be governor. . . . 

"The issue is whether the people shall have a say about how their 
money is spent or whether the University crowd shall spend it and 
say it is none of your business." As long as he is Governor he in- 
tends to "demand to know how the taxpayers' money is spent by those 
running the University." 

[Note that no one could object to the Governor's appointing his 
friends regents, provided they are qualified for the office ; but surely 
no one can believe that a man is fitted for that office merely because 
he is Governor Ferguson's friend. 

Note also that there is really no issue about University expendi- 
tures. Every cent that has ever been spent by the University has 
been spent by order of the Board of Regents on sworn itemized 
vouchers, approved by the Comptroller, and paid by the Treasurer, 
and reported every two years to the Legislature and the Governor. 
Seventeen such reports are now available in printed form to be con- 
sulted by any citizen who cares to know "how the taxpayers' money 
is spent by those running the University."] 

b. O'Banion Resolution Tabled. 

At the conclusion of the Governor's speech the House tabled the 
O 'Banion resolution by a vote of 104 to 31. The reason assigned was 
that the resolution did not present sworn charges looking toward im- 
peachment, and that the House could not properly take the time from 
public legislation to investigate their truth — though it was perfectly 
apparent that until the truth of the charges was ascertained there 
would be no ground for impeachment. 

8. The Dayton Resolution Introduced. 

On Tuesday, February 20, Mr. Lattimore called up his resolution 



18 Ferguson's War on the University. 

for an investigation of the University and of the three regents whose 
names had been sent to the Senate by Governor Ferguson. Mr. Day- 
"ton offered a substitute for the first part of Mr. Lattimore's resolu- 
tion. His substitute declared that the testimony taken by the regents 
in their investigation of the faculty members in October had been 
published ; that each senator had had an opportunity to read and con- 
sider it; and that "it is the sense of the Senate, that the investigation 
by the Regents was thorough ; that it disclosed some careless prac- 
tices not amounting to moral turpitude that had grown up in the 
management of the University during its thirty-three years of exis- 
tence and that these careless methods have all been rectified . . . 
and the Governor having stated he did not consider further investi- 
gation necessary be it resolved that judgment of the Board of Regents 
on matters considered by them, including charges against individuals, 
and all other matters considered by said Board at said hearing, were 
.and of right ought to be regarded by each senator as res adjudicata. " 

The latter part of the Lattimore resolution providing for an in- 
vestigation of the Governor's three nominees was incorporated by 
Senator Dayton in his substitute. 

It was explained that the Dayton resolution would have the effect 
"'of placing the Senate's stamp of approval on the decision of the 
former Board of Regents, will relieve the University of any blame, 
and is expected to have, the effect of removing forever any teause for 
.criticism or suspicion that the former investigation may not have 
removed. ' ' 

9. The Davis Charges Against the Governor. 

Consideration by the Senate of the Dayton resolution was inter- 
rupted by a resolution offered in the House by Representative Davis 
of Van Zandt preferring charges against the Governor and looking 
toward impeachment. Mr. Davis's charges, which he made on affi- 
davit, were substantially the same as those presented by Senator John- 
son and by Representative O'Banion: (1) That he had illegally 
and unconstitutionally applied public funds to his own use; (2) That 
in violation of state banking laws he had borrowed a large sum of 
money from the Temple State Bank; (3) That he had aided and 
abetted the president of said bank in violating the law; (4) That 
he had obtained money on property already encumbered by an un- 
recorded mortgage; (5) That through his influence he had induced 
the State Banking Commissioner to connive at his overloan in the 
Temple State Bank. 



. A Chronological Outline. 19 

a. The Governor's Counter Charges Against the University. 

The Governor was present on the floor of the House when Mr. 
Davis's charges were read, and, on invitation, he delivered a speech. 
Among- other things he said that "two influences are responsible for 
the charges made here today. One of them ... is the State 
University influence, and all that I will say is that as late as last 
September Dr. Vinson told a prominent official that they would in- 
vestigate Governor Ferguson to get even." Turning then to Repre- 
sentative Davis, Governor Ferguson said, "T. N. Jones and the State 
University have conspired through you as a medium to affect my 
ruin. Well, the bridle is off. We are going to see whether the State 
University can maintain a lobby around this legislature and come here 
and try to ruin a public official who has tried to do his duty to the 
people. ... I call on yon my friends that this is a fight of the 
State University on a Governor of Texas because he is not a college 
graduate and refuses to bow to their will, and the question is whether 
I am going to be sustained for 'fighting for the people or whether 
they are going to be sustained for robbing the people.". 

[The public official to whom the Governor here refers as telling 
him that President Vinson had threatened an investigation of the 
Governor in order to get even has been prominently mentioned as 
Governor Ferguson's candidate for the presidency of the Univer- 
sity. President Vinson denies saving any such thing to him or to 
any one else. He does remember saying to this official that he hoped 
the Governor would make an investigation of some of the other state 
departments besides the University in order to find out whether the 
University alone had been using mileage books and doing other 
things that the Governor complained of.] 

Action on the Davis resolution went over until Monday afternoon. 
An effort was then made by several members to rule it out on a point 
of order, their point being that it contained substantially the same 
charges that had been presented in the O'Banion resolution and re- 
jected. In answer to this it was pointed out that the 'Banion reso- 
lution made no charges, but merely presented a statement of certain 
rumors, while the Davis charges were presented on affidavit. The 
speaker refused to rule on the point of order and on reference to 
the House it was rejected. On the direct motion to adopt, the Davis 
resolution was then adopted by a vote of 86 to 41 and a committee 
of seven was appointed to conduct the investigation and report its 
findings to the House. 



20 Ferguson's War on the University. , 

b. Faculty Renews Request for Investigation of University. 

In the meantime the faculty of the University had on March 7 
adopted by unanimous vote an address to both houses of the legisla- 
ture denying any part in bringing about the Davis resolution and 
again petitioning the legislature most earnestly to make a most com- 
plete and thorough investigation of each department of the Univer- 
sity, knowing that such an investigation would prove it entirely 
blameless of any participation in the attack on the Governor. This 
petition was formally presented to the Senate and referred \o a com- 
mittee. On Monday, March 12, Mr. Lattimore introduced in the Senate 
a resolution signed by eighteen senators expressing full confidence 
in President Vinson and members of the faculty of the University 
of Texas. This was left on the table subject to call and was not again 
taken up.. 

10. Davis Charges Sustained, but no Impeachment. 

The committee on the investigation of the Governor made its re- 
port to the House on Thursday, March 15. The committee found 
the facts to sustain Representative Davis's charges on practically all 
counts. Its final conclusion, however, was that while "such conduct 
was unjustified and wholly unwarranted," "deserving the severest 
criticism and condemnation," it did not merit "the severe pains and 
penalty of impeachment." This report was accepted. The steno- 
graphic report of the testimony taken in the investigation was tran- 
scribed but the House refused to order it printed. It has since been 
published and can be obtained from Will C. Hogg. The principal 
matters of interest brought out in the investigation can be followed 
in the reports that appeared from day to day in the papers of the 
state from March 12 to March 16. 

11. The Dayton Resolution Passed; Regents Confirmed. 

In the meantime the Senate had rejected the nomination of Dr. 
D. H. Lawrence with only five votes in favor of his confirmation. 

On March 17 Dayton's resolution originally introduced on Feb- 
ruary 20 as a substitute for Lattimore 's resolution, was adopted by 
unanimous vote of the Senate. It was declared that "the adoption of 
this resolution has the effect of putting the Senate's sanction on the 
decision of the Board of Regents and will have the effect of tending 
to prevent the reopening of this investigation or the renewal of any 
of the charges against the faculty members in question by any future 
board of regents." 



A Chronological Outline. 21 

On Tuesday, March 20, on the eve of adjournment, the Senate 
confirmed the nomination of J. W. Butler and W. P. Allen and a 
few hours later confirmed the nomination of C. E. Kelley, former 
mayor of El Paso. It was undoubtedly the belief and the wish of the 
Senate that these new regents should consider themselves restricted 
by the terms of the Dayton resolution which was adopted as a pre- 
cedent to their confirmation. 

During the special session of the Legislature no controversy arose 
involving the University. Both houses passed the University budget 
substantially without change. It was minutely itemized, in accord- 
ance with what was understood to be the Governor's wish, and in- 
cluded a contingent item designed to be used by the Regents to pro- 
vide for changes and emergencies — this taking the place of the 
*' changes and substitutions" provision of the previous bill. 



III. HISTORICAL SUMMARY, MAY 27-JUNE 5. 

1. The Governor Calls Conference of Regents. 

On May 27 a thunderbolt fell from a clear sky. The morning 
papers announced that the governor had called a conference of the 
Board of Regents to meet in his office the following day to consider 
matters of grave importance to the University. They declared that 
the governor would demand of the Regents the dismissal of President 
Vinson, Mr. Lomax, and three other members of the faculty — all 
of whom except President Vinson had been tried and acquitted by 
the Regents in October. The papers intimated that if the Regents 
refused to obey his command, he would veto the entire University 
appropriation. 

a. Faculty Address to Regents. 

Sunday evening at eight o'clock nearly a hundred members of the 
faculty assembled in the Y. M. C. A. auditorium and adopted resolu- 
tions emphatically recognizing the right of the governor to make any 
recommendations to the Board of Regents wrrich his wisdom and con- 
science might dictate, but emphatically declaring that the ' Regents 
should be a free and autonomous board. They expressed the belief 
that the University would suffer far less harm by closing for two 
years than by keeping open at the expense of its independence and 
the independence of the Regents. 

b. The Press on the Governor's Action. 

On Monday morning, May 28, many papers of the State carried 
editorials condemning the governor's proposed action and expressing 
the opinion already adopted by the faculty members the night before 
that the University would better close than submit to political con- 
trol. This was also the unvarying tone of many individual and cor- 
porate expressions published in Monday's papers from all parts of 
the state. 

c. The Student Parade. 

During the forenoon of this day the students of the University 
held a mass meeting, and at the close of the meeting marched in 



A Chronological Outline. 23 

parade through the streets of Austin and around the Capitol carry- 
ing banners with inscriptions on them which expressed their dis- 
approval of the governor's action. When the parade reached the 
Capitol the Governor was just reading to the Regents his "recom- 
mendations" for the dismissal of President Vinson and the remedying 
of various alleged irregularities in the University management. The 
governor declares that the parade broke up his conference with the 
Regents, and it is a fact that in the afternoon of this same day the 
conference adjourned from the Capitol to the Regents' Room in the 
University library and went into an investigation to fix responsibility 
for the student parade. The conclusion seemed to 'be, though it was 
never announced, that it was strictly a student movement, unin- 
spired by members of the faculty, — which, in fact, is true, At the 
close of this session the Regents adjourned to meet in regular session 
at Galveston, May 31. 

2. Changes on the Board of Regents. 

The morning papers of Thursday, May 31, announced the resigna- . 
tion of Regent J. "W. Butler and recorded a long-distance telephone 
conversation between Mr. Butler and President Vinson in which Mr, 
Butler announced that he would never vote for the dismissal of Pres- 
ident Vinson from the University, intimating that he had been re- 
quested to do so. The papers at the same time announced the ap- 
pointment of Mr. J. M. Mathis of Brenham to succeed Regent Butler, 
and quoted Mr. Mathis as saying he would "do his duty." The 
same papers announced that the governor had removed Dr. $. J.. 
Jones from the Board because of lack of harmony with the adminis- 
tration and that he had appointed in Dr. Jones's place Dr. J. P. 
Tucker of Galveston. 

a. The Hornsby Injunction. 

During the afternoon of May 31, County Attorney J. W. Hornsby 
was granted by the 26th District Court in Austin a restraining order 
enjoining Dr. Tucker from taking his seat as a member of the Board 
of Regents. The plea- for the injunction denied the constitutional 
right of the governor to remove a member of the Board without cause 
established by trial. 

b. The Lomax Injunction. 

At ten o'clock on the night of May 31, the same court granted to 
Mr. Lomax a restraining order enjoining Regents McReynolds, Ply, 



24 Ferguson 's War on the University. 

Kelley, and Mathis from dismissing himself and President Vinson, 
or other members of the faculty from the University. He alleged as 
a ground for his petition that these four Regents had conspired with 
the governor to dismiss certain members of the faculty. 

c. More Changes on the Board. 

Friday morning, June 1, the papers announced the resignation of 
Regent McReynolds and the appointment by the governor in his place 
of W. G. Love of Houston. The Board finding itself unable to act 
in accordance with the governor's alleged demands, adjourned to meet 
in Austin in regular session on June 11. v 

3. Lomax and Vinson Refuse to Resign. 

Saturday evening, June 2, about 7:30 o'clock news spread through 
Austin that the governor had carried out his threat and had vetoed 
the total appropriation. 

This news was published in all the state papers on Sunday, June 3, 
and on the same day the Dallas News carried an interview with 
Regent Mathis in which he urged friends of the University to co- 
operate with him in choosing a great educator for President of the 
University, and in return for such co-operation he promised to use 
all his influence with the governor to secure the withdrawal of the 
veto. 

On Tuesday afternoon, June 5, two of the Regents called on 
President Vinson and Mr. Lomax and proposed that they should re- 
sign, saying that in the event of their resignation the governor would 
withdraw the veto in part and would allow the University an appro- 
priation of a million dollars for the next biennium. They both re- 
fused, and a few hours later it was announced that the veto message 
had been filed with the Secretary of State and had therefore become 
;final. 

4. Veto Message. 

In his veto message as published in the papers of Sunday, June 3, 
Governor Ferguson made various charges against the University in 
which he sought to justify his veto of the appropriation and the total 
destruction of the University. The main features of his statement 

are : 

(1) That the state appropriated to educate a student in the 
University for the two years, September, 1917, to August, 1919, 



A Chronological Outline. 25 

$545; while the state apportionment for each pupil in the public 
schools for the same time would amount to about $15. 

(2) That President Vinson is not qualified to be president of the 
University: (a) That he lacks teaching experience, (b) is without 
sufficient educational attainments, (c) mismanaged the Presbyterian 
Theological Seminary while its president and left it practically 
bankrupt, (d) is a sectarian preacher which, under the constitution 
debars him from holding such office as the presidency of the Uni- 
versity, and (e) is objectionable to other religious denominations 
of the state. 

(3) That the University is a rich man's school. That the stu- 
dent body is divided into fraternities and barbarians. The fraterni- 
ties live in "stately mansions," surrounded by luxury, and ridicule 
the poverty of the "barbarians." The institution is undemocratic 
and snobbish and should be reformed or abolished. 

(4) That the funds of the University are being grossly misman- 
aged. Professors are allowed leave of absence for varying terms 
without reduction of salary. Other professors receiving large sal- 
aries work no more than fifteen hours a week. Most of the real 
work of teaching is done by instructors of low educational attain- 
ments. 

(5) That the University is doing work that other institutions of 
the state can do better and more cheaply. 

(6) That the faculty vs divided into small cliques and some of 
these cliques attempt to control the regents and the governor and 
manage the. institution. 

(7) That the University "should have new blood in its faculty 
and a competent man at its head." 

(8) That the students who engaged in the parade were a lawless 
mob of rich men's sons who desire to establish an educational aristo- 
cracy. They have no respect for the legislature, for the governor, 
or for the Board of Regents. They exhibited their insulting ban- 
ners to the faculty on the campus before starting on their march 
to the capitol and therefore the faculty, even if it did not instigate 
the parade, is responsible for it. 

(9) That the Lomax injunction suit debars "my friends whom 
I have appointed to assist me in carrying out the affairs of the gov- 
ernment from having a voice" in spending the University appropria- 
tion. 

(10) That the University began its fight on me because of my 
support of rural schools. "The educated autocratic highbrows" 
who desire to maintain an educational aristocracy, are opposed to 
the education of the masses. 



26 Ferguson 's War on the University. 

5. THE REAL FACTS OF THE CASE. 

a. Cost of Education at University of Texas. 

According to careful statistics compiled by Dean H. Y. Benedicts- 
it cost $227 a year from 1913 to 1916 to educate a student at the 
Main University of Texas, or $454 for two years. It costs twice 
as much to educate a student at the University of Virginia; nearly 
twice as much at the University of Mississippi. It costs $394 a year 
to educate a student at the University of Michigan, and $354 a year 
at the University of Iowa. 

Actually it costs, on the other hand, much more than $15 to teach 
a pupil two years in the common schools. In the first place, the 
attendance in the public schools has been little more than 60% of the 
scholastic population on which the apportionment is based. More- 
over, the state apportionment of $15 is supplemented several times 
over by local taxation in each school district. The intermediate 
grades cost much more than the primary grades; the high school 
much more than the intermediate. The cost necessarily increases 
with each advance, and the only fair way to study the cost of edu- 
cation at the University of Texas is to compare it with the cost in 
other universities. 

Forty-three states in the union now maintain state universities, 
and those which do not have state universities are in the East and 
have within their limits such institutions as Harvard, Yale, Prince- 
ton, Dartmouth, etc. If Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Arkansas and Arizona can maintain state universities,, can 
Texas afford not to? 

b. As to President Vinson. 

(a) The President of the University does not teach. No presi- 
dent of the University of Texas has ever taught classes. His alleged 
deficiency in this respect, therefore, even if it were a fact, which it 
is not, would have little bearing on his efficiency as president of the 
University, (b) Concerning his lack of education it is hardly nec- 
essary to speak. No one who knows him or who has ever heard him 
speak, has any doubt on this point, (c) The charge that he mis- 
managed the funds of the Austin Theological Seminary and left it 
in a bankrupt condition is a gratuitous distortion of fact. Major 
George W. Littlefield, President of the American National Bank of 
Austin, declared on oath during the trial of the Lomax injunction 



A Chronological Outline. 27 

suit that he had made an examination of the affairs of the Seminary 
and that its assets are some $300,000 and its liabilities $18,000. Of 
this condition he said the Governor was informed, (d) He is a 
Presbyterian preacher. During- the term of his presidency he has 
preached six sermons. At the time when the governor declared 
that he had preached 186 sermons, he had really preached only five, 
(e) Far from arousing" the antagonism of other denominations Presi- 
dent Vinson has been specifically and emphatically endorsed by the 
principal denominations. Some of his most earnest and able de- 
fenders are Catholics, (f) The constitution does not prohibit the 
holding of such an office by a preacher. Preachers have in fact dis- 
tinguished themselves as great teachers in many institutions, as 
well as in the University of Texas. Many educational institutions, 
have preachers for their president, and on July 1, the University 
of Minnesota with a building plant valued at twelve million dollars 
and a faculty and student body larger than that of Texas installed 
as its president a preacher, (g) President Vinson is emphatically 
an educated Christian gentleman. 

c. Fraternities. 

As to fraternities, the whole question is a matter of insignificance. 
The issue was inserted by Governor Ferguson in his veto message in 
the hope of dividing the student body and the ex-students, and 
thereby forestalling united and unanimous indignation and opposi- 
tion to his measure. It was a political trick. The students readily 
saw through it, and the leader of the non-fraternity men in the 
University declared in the Texan of June 5 in no uncertain terms 
that the non-fraternity men repudiated the governor's pretended 
solicitude for their interest. 

As a matter of fact college fraternities have very little meaning 
and exert practically no influence on the character or social affilia- 
tions of students after they have left college and entered public life. 

d. Faculty Leaves of Absence. 

The Boards of Regents which have controlled the University for 
the last thirty-four years have at times granted leaves of absence 
to members of the faculty for a few months, and in some instances 
for a year, and have allowed them to draw a part of their salaries 
while on leave. This is a matter of common practice in all first- 
class universities. Some institutions compel their members to take 
one year's leave every seven years and pay them full salaries while 



28 Ferguson's War on the University. 

absent. They believe that the increased efficiency gained by fresh 
study is a profitable return on the investment. If this is illegal 
and unconstitutional in Texas, it should be stopped, but the issue 
has never been raised in the past and in following the practice of 
other first-class institutions, the Boards of Regents who granted and 
members of the faculty who accepted leaves of absences have been 
conscious of no wrong doing. 

e. Working Hours of Professors. 

As to the professors who do less than fifteen hours work a week: 
It is probably true that very few professors or instructors do more 
than fifteen hours a week of actual class teaching. The most 
burdensome part of a teacher's work, however, is not in the class 
room but in reading papers, directing the work of individual stu- 
dents, serving on committees, looking after the details of adminis- 
tration in his department, and in keeping up with educational prog- 
ress in his special field. Counting this, very few professors and 
instructors work less than ten hours a day. To consider only the 
hours spent in the class room is as unfair as to declare that a lawyer 
is working only while in the court room, or a doctor while he is visit- 
ing a patient, or a preacher while he is delivering a sermon. 

f. Minor Matters. 

"The poorly educated instructors" concerning whom the gover- 
nor speaks have in most cases spent four years in college, three years 
in a graduate university, taken the Ph. D. degree, published a book 
or two, and had several years experience in teaching. 

As to the work which can be done better and more cheaply than 
the University is doing it, the governor does not go into particulars. 
The charge is general, and cannot be answered specifically. No 
institution in Texas is known of which this statement is true in 
general. It may very well happen that in some cases a particular 
line of work can be done more cheaply in some other institution, 
and it may quite as well happen, on the other hand, that work is, 
being done in other state institutions which can be done very much 
more efficiently and cheaply in the University. 

g. Faculty Desires Independent Regents. 

The faculty has never attempted to control the Regents and has 
no desire to control them. Absolutely the only desire of the faculty 



A Chronological Outline. 29 

concerning' the Regents is that they; shall be intelligent, honest, inde- 
pendent men, who shall endeavor to exercise their authority for the 
best interest of the University. The constitution and the laws of 
Texas give to the Regents the authority to direct the University. 
If the Regents exercise that authority independently and honestly, 
with a conscientious regard for the welfare of the University, then, 
no member of the faculty and no citizen of the state has a valid 
right to complain. The faculty does, however, as well as every 
other decent citizen of the state, deny the right of the Regents to 
accept the dictation of the governor and allow him thereby to run 
the University in such way as to gratify personal spite or to furnish 
employment for his political tools. 

h. The Parade. 

The student parade was not inspired by the faculty, but was an 
expression of spontaneous student indignation at the attempt of the 
governor to coerce the Regents into doing his bidding under the 
threat of vetoing the total appropriation and closing the University. 
The students felt that a University thus controlled would not be 
worth keeping open, and the parade was intended to show this in 
an unmistakable way. No one familiar with the operation of stu- 
dent self-government at the University will need to be told that the 
students are in the habit of doing their own thinking in matters that 
concern the University and themselves. Moreover, who are these 
students who engaged in the parade? They are the sons and 
daughters of 3,000 respectable families, representing nearly every 
occupation followed in Texas. 

i. Effect of Lomax Injunction. 

The Lomax injunction suit certainly did, as the governor alleges, 
restrain his "friends" temporarily from dismissing certain members 
of the faculty. It did not, however, restrain them "from having a 
voice as to how this vast sum of money shall be spent. ' ' It did not 
even restrain them from injecting "new blood" into the University. 
It did. however, prevent them from putting in a new president, at 
that time, which was probably the real essence of the governor's 
objection to the injunction. 

j. Faculty Not Opposed to Common Schools. 

No member of the University faculty, no matter how highly edu- 
cated or autocratic, or highbrowed he may be, is silly enough to 



30 Ferguson's War on the University. 

object to liberal appropriations for the rural schools. Re Knows 
that the welfare of the University is dependent on the develop- 
ment of education throughout the state from the bottom to the top. 
The faculty has, on the contrary, gone on record repeatedly in its 
endorsement of liberal appropriations for the common schools and 
particularly for rural schools. The impression uppermost in most 
faculty minds, perhaps, is that rural and common school education 
is the only protection of the state and the University against ex- 
ploitation by demagogues and politicians. 

k. Not. Rich Man's School. 

The University is not composed of rich men's sons and daugthers. 
The governor utterly ignores the facts in his statements. He has 
had every opportunity to know that more than forty per cent of the 
present student body is paying its own way through the University, 
wholly or partly. Parents of the students of 1916-17 represent 
nearly every occupation followed in Texas, but the vast plurality 
of them are farmers. The students are not lacking in respect for the 
offices of governor, legislator, or regent, but their very democracy 
and independence and intellectual freedom make it impossible for 
them to respect the men who hold these offices regardless of their 
personal character and conduct. 



IV. HISTORICAL SUMMARY, JUNE 5-JUNE 20. 
1. Negotiations Between Regents and Ex-Students' Association. 

On Tuesday, June 5, while the veto was pending, having been pub- 
lished but not filed with the secretary of state, an unofficial meeting 
of seven of the Regents assembled at Austin. In a document skill- 
fully drawn by one of the Governor's recent appointees, they made 
certain proposals to Messrs. John W. Brady and D. K. Woodward, 
representatives of the Central Committee of the Ex-Students' Asso- 
ciation. If these gentlemen would procure the dismissal of the Lomax 
injunction suit, they would agree to use their influence with the 
Governor to induce him to withdraw his veto and allow the Univer- 
sity to run. They declared that the injunction suit was an effort on 
the part of "certain students and members of the faculty of the 
University to intimidate, threaten and. coerce the board of regents 
with reference to the discharge of its duties in the management and 
control of the University"; and that "the Governor has indicated 
that rather than see the control of the University taken from the 
board of regents and vested in the faculty and students he will veto 
the appropriation." 

[Note, of course, that the injunction suit most emphatically was 
not aimed to "intimidate," "threaten," or "coerce" the Board of 
Regents in "the management and control of the University," and 
that there has never been any effort or desire on the part of either 
faculty or students to take such management and control from the 
Regents. The injunction was for the sole purpose of preventing the 
Governor from imposing his own autocratic demands on the Regents, 
thereby enabling them to exercise their independent judgment for 
the best interest of the University.] 

Messrs. Brady and Woodward disclaimed any effort to "intimi- 
date, threaten and coerce the board." Everything that had. been 
done, they said, had been done "in an effort to have the University 
conducted by a legally constituted board, legally selected to manage 
its affairs, free from domination, and influenced by a desire to sub- 
serve the highest interest of the state." They declined to withdraw 
the injunction suit, and suggested as a possible solution of the diffi- 
culty a special session of the Legislature. 

In the papers of June 6 Regents Mathis and Love announced that 
they had proposed to Messers. Brady and Woodward that they them- 
selves and Regents Allen, Fly, and Kelley would resign, if, in turn, 



32 Ferguson 's War on the University. 

the injunction suit were withdrawn. The next day Messrs. Brady 
and Woodward said that no such proposal had been definitely made 
to them, but explained very clearly that even if the five regents men- 
tioned should resign, there would be no reason to expect the appoint- 
ment by the Governor of more suitable persons in their places. 

2. The Veto Slightly Modified. 

On Thursday, June 7, it was discovered that the veto message as 
filed with the Secretary of State differed somewhat from the proc- 
lamation as published in Sunday's papers. The salary of the Dean 
of the College of Arts and the available fund from the University 
lands and bonds were spared. There had been some discussion, after 
the publication of the original proclamation, of the Governor's power 
to issue deficiency warrants for the purpose of maintaining the Uni- 
versity according to his own wishes, and the preponderance of legal 
opinion seemed to be that he could not issue a deficiency warrant to 
supplement a fund that did not exist. This evidently impressed the 
governor, and it is supposed that he approved the Dean's salary in 
order to leave a germ upon which to graft a deficiency appropriation. 

On Saturday, June 9, two important events occurred. One of these 
was a state mass meeting at Austin of persons interested in pre- 
venting the closing of the University by the Governor's veto 5 and the 
other was an opinion of the Attorney General of the state declaring 
the veto defective and invalid. 

3. State Mass Meeting at Austin. 

The mass meeting of several hundred delegates from all sections 
of the state was presided over by ex-Governor Joseph D. Sayers. It 
adopted resolutions expressing grief and shame at the spectacle pre- 
sented by the state in closing the doors of the University at a time 
when scientific training is needed by the nation as never before, 
in preparing men and women to meet the problems of war ; and called 
a second meeting at Dallas on the following Saturday, June 16, to 
adopt a definite plan to prevent the closing of fhe University. 

4. Veto Declared Invalid. 

The Attorney General's opinion declared that through the Gov- 
ernor's failure to veto the totals, summarized on page 27 of! the ap- 
propriation bill, the University appropriations remained intact. The 
Governor had, in other words, vetoed the itemization and left the 



A Chronological Outline. 33 

total sum to be expended at the discretion of the Regents. The At- 
torney General himself anticipated that the Governor would not ac- 
cept this opinion without a judicial decision. 

5. The Injunction Cases in Court. 

On Monday, June 11, the two injunctions came up for trial before 
Judge Ireland Graves of the Twenty-sixth District Court. Dr. Tucker 
was absent and unrepresented by counsel and Judge Graves continued 
the restraining order enjoining him from exercising the functions of 
regent. The trial of the Lomax case against Regents Mathis, Fly, 
and Kelley was begun, and, on motion of plaintiff's attorneys, Regent 
Love was also made a party to the suit in place of Dr. McReynolds, 
resigned. Later, on request of the same attorneys, Mr. Love was 
dropped from the suit. Trial of the case continued through Friday, 
June 15. Testimony of President Vinson, of ex-Regents Dave Har- 
rell and Will C. Hogg, and of Regents Mathis, Fly, Love, Kelley, 
Littlefield, Cook, Brents and Allen showed unmistakably the deter- 
mination of the Governor to control the Regents and make his own 
will the supreme law for the University. At the conclusion of the 
hearings Judge Graves took the case under advisement, and rendered 
his decision, July 3. ■ 

6. State Mass Meeting* at Dallas. 

On Saturday, June 16, the mass meeting assembled in Dallas with 
some 1600 delegates present representing all sections of the state. 
After voting down a resolution offred by Chester H. Terrell urging 
the legislature to assemble to impeach the Governor, the meeting 
adopted, by an overwhelming majority, a preamble and resolutions 
reciting ' the constitutional demand for a University and the legal 
provision for its management and control ; declaring that the Gov- 
ernor had violated the Constitution by his veto and both the Con- 
stitution and the law by his attempts to control the regents ; and 
making provision for presenting the issue clearly to the state in the 
hope of taking the University and other educational institutions 
permanently out of politics. The resolutions condemned the "unjust 
personal attacks of the Governor of the State of Texas on the presi- 
dent and faculty of the University," and expressed confidence in 
their integrity; called on the Governor to assemble the legislature 
to investigate his charges; and made provision for a permanent 
organization to carry on a campaign of education. 



34 Ferguson 's War on the University. 

7. Address of Ex-Students. 

On Saturday, June 23, the Executive Council of the Ex-Students' 
Association met at Galveston and issued an address "to the people 
of Texas." In this they emphasized the fact that the control of the 
University is vested by the Constitution in the Board of Regents, 
and condemned the Governor for his efforts to coerce the Board and 
compel them by the use of the veto power to discharge the President 
and various members of the faculty of the University. Taking up 
the Governor's charge that the Unversity is a "rich man's school," 
they denied it most emphatically ; continuing they said, ' ' but certain 
it is that it is not the rich man and the rich man's son who will 
suffer if the institution is closed. It is the poor boy and girl, the boy 
and girl of moderate means, and they are in large majority at the 
University, who will, if anyone, have to forego the opportunity to 
continue University work to equip themselves to meet in life's com- 
petition the sons and daughters of those more fortunate who can 
and will complete their education out of the state." Concluding 
their address, they declared: "That it is our purpose to use every 
honorable means to keep the University of Texas open and in the 
full and complete discharge of its great obligations to this state, and 
to remove it as far as possible from the chances of being affected 
by the ever-changing fortunes of purely political questions or per- 
sonal ambitions." 

8. The Governor's Villification of the University. 

In the meantime from June 10 to June 18 the Governor had been 
making a tour of West Texas, inspecting sites for the West Texas 
A. and M. College. During this time he is reported by the news- 
papers to have made an average of three speeches a day, in nearly 
all of which he villined the "University crowd." 

a. At Kerrville. 

Beginning at Kerrville on June 10, he is quoted by the San Antonio 
Express as saying, "I have found far more disloyalty in the State 
University at Austin than among the Germans or the people of any 
other nationality." 

[The best answer to this charge is the one published by President 
Vinson in all the daily papers on Monday, June 12. President 
Vinson merely called attention to the record of the University since 
the declaration of war: (1) Four hundred students and more than 



A Chronological Outline. 35 

two hundred ex-students had entered the officers' trailung camp 
at Leon Springs; (2) within a week after the declaration of war 
every student in the University was taking some form of training 
for military preparedness; (3) students and faculty had contributed 
liberally to Red Cross and army Y. M. C. A. funds and had sub- 
scribed liberally to liberty bonds; (4) the University's laboratories 
and instructors had been placed at the unlimited disposal of the 
Federal Government, etc., etc.] 

b. At Abilene. 

At Abilene, on June 12, the Governor declared that the University 
had attacked him because of his support of liberal appropriations 
for rural schools. 

[In passing, note that the University has never to this day at- 
tacked the Governor, but has merely tried to defend itself from his 
vicious attacks upon it. And note, in the second place, that the 
University has not «nly not opposed liberal appropriations for the 
rural schools, but has repeatedly gone on record as urging them.] 

"They say," continued the Governor, "that I want to dorse the 
University and that I am against higher education. I deny it. The 
statements are maliciously false, deliberately untrue, and spread by a 
nefarious system of the student crowd." 

[The answer to this is the Governor's own veto proclamation is- 
sued to the press, and mailed in very large quantities to citizens 
throughout the state. In this he declared that there are "too many 
people going hog wild about higher education," and that he had 
vetoed the total appropriation for the support of the University for 
the next two years. It was the Governor himself, of course, and 
not the "nefarious system of the student crowd" that spread the 
impression that he is opposed to the University and higher educa- 
tion.] 

"In my official career," said the Governor, "I have found more 
corruption in the affairs at the University of Texas than in all of 
the other departments of the state government." He explained this 
partially by saying that the regents had in the past granted leaves of 
absence to members of the faculty and continued their salary, in part, 
to enable them to study in northern universities. 

[This has already been answered in the discussion of the veto 
message. It is a fact that the regents have for many years made a 
practice of granting to a few members of the faculty such leaves 
of absence. It is a practice that is followed in most universities of 
the United States, and a glance at the names of some of the men 



36 Ferguson's War on the University. 

who have served on the board of regents in the past will show con- 
clusively that they could have been conscious of no impropriety or 
irregularity in following the practice. Thos. D. Wooten, George W. 
Brackenridge, W. L. Prather, T. S. Henderson, Joseph D. Sayers, T. 
W. Gregory, A. W. Terrell, are only a few of the illustrious men 
who have approved this practice.] 

Some of the other charges made by the Governor in this speech 
were : 

(1) That the expense accounts of members of the faculty, to 
which he called the attention of the regents in the October investiga- 
tion, were such as would cause the discharge of a section hand. 

(2) That it took a teacher in the University three years to learn 
that wool would not grow on an armadillo's back, and he expressed 
the fear that the University would next be found inaugurating a 
veterinary course. 

(3) That the appropriations for the University were per capita 
thirty-six times those for common schools, 

(4) That the student body of the University is divided into fra- 
ternities which live in "palatial houses," and poor boys called bar- 
barians, who eat at "soup houses." The poor boys, he thinks, are 
called barbarians "because they haven't money enough to gallop with 
the crowd." The fraternity men are snobs and think themselves 
"little tin Jesuses with little tin wings." 

(5) That the University pay roll is padded with all sorts of 
positions. 

(6) That there is "no lie so black that these fellows would not 
tell," meaning the University faculty. 

[All these charges have been answered in the discussion of the 
veto message, except that of the padded pay roll and the faculty 
liars. As to the pay roll it is only necessary to say that every posi- 
tion and every salary in the University is voted by the Board of 
Regents, a considerable number of whom the Governor himself has 
appointed. As to the charge that all members of the faculty are 
liars, it is hardly possible to make a defense. Certainly that is not 
the reputation of members of the faculty in Austin. It is a most 
cowardly and dastardly libel, couched in general and comprehensive 
terms, including every member, men and women, of the University 
faculty. It is a shameful use of his high position by the Governor 
to blacken the character of innocent men and women and to under- 
mine the confidence of the people in the integrity of their univer- 
sity.] 



A Chronological Outline. 37 

c. At Haskell. 

At Haskell on June 13, apparently forgetting that he had the day 
before denounced the "nefarious student system" for spreading the 
report that he was opposed to the University and higher education, 
he said: "I want to tell you that those University appropriations 
are vetoed. . . . Those appropriations have been vetoed, and that 
is not all, they are going to stay vetoed." He then repeated against 
the students and faculty the charge of disloyalty first made in his 
Kerrville speech. To this he added a charge of "HIGH TREASON 
AGAINST THE GOVERNOR OP TEXAS." In this he referred to 
the "kaiserism" banner carried by the students in their parade. 
He said that if he himself should make such an insinuation against 
President Wilson he would be judged guilty of high treason. "And 
it is just as much high treason for those University students to say 
that about me as it would be for me to say that about President 
Wilson, and I charge them with high treason against the Governor 
of Texas." 

[There was in the old monarchies of Europe during- the 18th cen- 
tury a political crime against the king which the French called 
Use majeste. This included such offenses as disrespect for the sacred 
person of the king. Most of those monarchies have long ago out- 
grown this law.] 

In this speech the governor repeated his statement that President 
Vinson is an "educational failure," and declared that the board of 
regents elected him president temporarily merely to keep the place 
for Dr. Battle until the close of the Ferguson administration. 

d. Sweetwater, Hamlin, and Snyder. 

Charges made at Sweetwater and Hamlin (June 14) and Snyder 
(June 15) were little more than a reiteration of those made in his 
previous speeches, the only new item being that President Wilson 
had expelled fraternities from Princeton and that he was going to 
follow Wilson's example and put them out of Texas. 

e. At Lubbock. 

At Lubbock (June 16) he said: "One reason the University 
crowd is fighting me is that I demanded that they itemize their 
requests for appropriation bills." After he had made this demand, 
he said, "The University packed the wards of Austin with students 
who had no right to be there and sent a delegation to the state can- 



38 Ferguson's War on the University. 

vention which fought me." Some of the epithets which he applied 
to the faculty were, "Butterfly chasers," "day dreamers," "edu- 
cated fools," and "two-bit thieves." 

f. At Plainview. * 

At Plainview on June 18 he recapitulated his charges and declared 
that they had never been answered : 

(1) That within the last four years twenty-four professors had 
been absent on leave for half a year, each receiving salary from the 
state. 

(2) That teachers in the University taught an average of only 
eight or nine students. [In fact they teach an average of fourteen, 
which, compared with other state universities of the rank of Texas, 
is high.] 

(3) That the state appropriates $545 per capita for University 
students for two years and only $15 to the rural school children. 

(4) That University professors work only fifteen hours a week. 
[These statements have all been answered in the discussion of the 

veto message.] 

(5) Referring in this speech to the mass meeting at Dallas on 
June 16, the Governor repeated that President Wilson had put the 
fraternities out of Princeton; that Albert Burleson and T. W. Greg- 
ory, members of President Wilson's cabinet, are alumni of the Uni- 
versity of Texas and fraternity men. To be consistent, the mass 
meeting should, he said, instead of condemning him, have called 
on these gentlemen to resign their positions in the cabinet. Of 
course the Governor has a kink in his logic here. It is he himself 
who seems lacking in consistency. Why does he not call upon these 
gentlemen to resign ? Why, in fact, does not President Wilson dis- 
charge them? 

g. No Truce. 

The speech at Plainview closed the Governor's speaking tour. 
At Dallas the next day he declared to a reporter of the Dallas News 
that he would probably tour South Texas for the purpose of locating 
the South Texas Normal and that he might then tour Northeast and 
East Texas~for the purpose of locating the Stephen F. Austin Nor- 
mal. Only press of state business would prevent his doing this and 
anyway, he said, "I will keep the University issue before the people 
and will make a tour of the state in the interest of that matter." 
He refused to answer any questions in this interview concerning his 



A Chronological Outline. 39 

attitude toward the closing of the University for the next two years. 
The reporter received the impression that the Governor considered 
the student parade an act of anarchy and that he resented the 
popular condemnation of his veto as a denial of his "constitutional* 
rights." 

His promise Mr. Ferguson shows every indication of fulfilling. In 
a speech at Valley Mills on July 13 (reported fully in Dallas Neivs 
and Austin Statesman of July 14) he quite surpassed his own record 
of vituperation, misrepresentation and libel of University, faculty, 
students and ex-students. Speeches at Austin on July 26 (reported 
widely in the press of the State) and at Walnut Springs on July 28 
(reported in the Galveston-Dallas News of the next day) continued 
his attack on the University with little change. 



V. HISTORICAL SUMMARY, JULY 3-JULY 14. 

1. Judge Graves Dismisses the Lomax Injunction. 

On July 3 Judge Ireland Graves handed down his decision in the 
Lomax injunction suit, setting aside the restraining order which he 
had granted on May 31. The law, said Judge Graves, gives the Board 
of Kegents full authority to manage the University — "to determine 
the offices and professorships, appoint the professors and other offi- 
cers, fix their salaries, and remove any professor or other officer 
when in the judgment of the board the interest of the University 
may require it." While the Rules and Regulations of tlie Regents 
declare that the board will remove no one without cause, this cannot 
limit the statute. It may be argued that "independently of the rules 
of the board and under the statutes, the board should be prohibited 
from acting arbitrarily." But, "If the statutory injunction under 
which the board now rests and the solemn obligation assumed by its 
members upon subscribing to the oath of office do not operate as a 
sufficient restraint, then the court injunction Avould either be futile 
or its tendency subversive of the very freedom sought to be preserved 
in the board. ' ' If the powders of the board are too broad, the remedy 
is a legislative and not a judicial function, says the court. "If by 
lawful means, I might compel adherence of those having exclusive 
control over the University to the high ideals by which, it w T ould seem 
to me, they should be guided, it would be a pleasure to make use of 
such means. But, as I view it, no such means being provided, loyalty 
to those same ideals forbids the use of others." . However, "If 
doubt may be expressed as to the judicial power to interfere with the 
actions of the board the utter want of such lawful power in the execu- 
tive is as indubitable as certainty itself." 

a. Statement of the Lomax Attorneys. 

On July 9 Mr. Lomax 's attorneys gave to the press a statement, 
saying that while they disagreed writh the court on some of the legal 
points involved in the decision, they would not appeal the case. The 
statement follows in full: 

"The learned opinion of the court in the Lomax injunction case 
holds : 

"1. That the conduct of the Governor is indefensible. 



A Chronological Outline. 41 

"2. That the wrongs alleged have been supported by such evi- 
dence as would require the case to be submitted to a jury on a final 
hearing on the merits. 

"3. That on account of the language of the statute, the court is 
powerless to give any relief against the wrongs alleged. 

"As to the correctness of the legal conclusion last mentioned, we 
feel there is grave and substantial doubt. The Lomax case, however, 
was not brought in the private interest of any member of the Uni- 
versity faculty. It was brought in the interest of the University and 
must end as soon as that interest requires. The case has prevented 
precipitate execution of the Governor's orders, made a public record 
of the true facts, enabled the people of Texas to ascertain the real 
character and significance pf the Governor's behavior, given the new 
regents time within which to contemplate their duty to the University, 
and definitely established by judicial decision that the extraordinary 
steps taken by the Governor to dominate the regents are in gross 
transgression of his lawful powers. 

"These ends having been accomplished, however, we have con- 
cluded that the interest of the University now requires that the case 
be not appealed. We have never intended or desired to dictate the 
management of the University by injunction, but sought only to pro- 
tect it against political domination. After all, regardless of any law 
suit, the last refuge of the University must lie in the conscience, 
courage and independence of the board of -regents, and to that body 
the people of Texas must now look for the protection of their Uni- 
versity. ' ' 

2. The Regents at Galveston. 

On July 12 the papers again carried startling news about the Uni- 
versity situation. It had become known the day before that Gov- 
ernor Ferguson had withdrawn Dr. Tucker's name as a successor to 
Dr. Jones — Tucker being restrained by Judge Graves's restraining 
order from serving in that capacity, — and had appointed John Ward 
of Temple, one of his attorneys. Judge Graves thereupon issued an 
order restraining Mr. Ward or any other person from "in any way 
attempting to assume or exercise the functions of regent of the Uni- 
versity of Texas as successor to the intervenor S. J. Jones, and from 
instituting or attempting to prosecute in any other court any suit- 
having for its purpose the restraint of intervenor in any manner from 
the lawful discharge of his duties as regent of the University of 
Texas." At the same time each member of the Board of Regents was 
enjoined individually, and their successors were enjoined, (1) to 



42 Ferguson's War on the University. 

recognize Dr. Jones as the "duly qualified, authorized and acting 
regent of the University of Texas;" and (2) "from recognizing or 
attempting to recognize any other person than intervenor, S. J. 
Jones, as incumbent of the office to which he was appointed." 

The same day, July 12, Regent Fly was served with an order from 
Judge George Calhoun's court restraining him from acting as a regent 
on the ground that he had vacated his office by accepting a federal 
appointment as physician of the Galveston draft exemption board. 
Dr. Fly announced his intention to defy the injunction, saying that 
his lawyer had advised him that the two positions were not incom- 
patible so long as he did not accept remuneration from the federal 
government: Judge Calhoun then enjoined the members of the Board 
of Regents individually from recognizing Dr. Fly as regent, and 
enjoined the secretary from recording his vote. The next day Dr. 
Fly re-entered the meeting with a new commission from the Governor. 
It was explained that he had resigned his federal appointment and 
been re-appointed to the Board of Regents. 

The board then proceeded to dismiss Messrs. Lomax, A. C. Ellis. 
Cofer, Mays, Mather, and Butte. Against the first five charges had 
been brought by Mr. Ferguson in October, and the board, as then con- 
stituted, had tried and acquitted them; against Professor Butte no 
charges have ever been made. No reason was assigned for the dis- 
missal of any of the men. 

At the close of the meeting Regent Mathis announced to the press 
that President Vinson would be discharged in October. 



VI. HISTORICAL SUMMARY, JULY 14-JULY 31. 

1. The ^Speaker Calls the House of Representatives to Impeach the 

Governor. 

On Monday evening, July 23, Speaker F. 0. Fuller issued from 
Houston a call to the House of Representatives to meet at the Cap- 
itol on August 1 to consider impeachment charges against the Gov- 
ernor. He announced three reasons for the call: (1) the governor's 
violation of the Constitution and the statutes in his dealings with the 
University; (2) his refusal to reconvene the locating board of the 
West Texas A. and M. College, though evidences of fraud in the 
selection of Abilene had been discovered; and (3) his failure to 
fulfill his promise made under oath to the House's investigating 
committee in March to repay the public funds illegally spent for 
the use of himself and his family. Other charges would be filed, 
said Mr. Fuller, when the House assembled. 

Concerning the University Mr. Fuller said : 

"The people of Texas, by Article VII of the Constitution of this 
State, provided for the establishment, maintenance and support of 
a university of the first-class to be known as the University of Texas. 
Thus is expressed the will of the people of this State, and until 
recently no one has denied the right of the sovereign people to have 
such a university. The Constitution further provides by the amend- 
ment of 1912, known as Section 30-A of Article 16, for a Board of 
Regents who should hold their respective terms for six years each. 

"By Article 2639 and 2640 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1911, 
the Board of Regents are given the management and control of the 
affairs of the University of Texas, with the right to remove the mem- 
bers of the faculty w r hen in their judgment it is deemed advisable. 

"Article 6027 provides for the removal of the Board of Regents, 
among other officers,, for 'good and sufficient cause.' 
' "The Thirty-fifth Legislature passed an appropriation which in 
their judgment was necessary for the support and maintenance of 
the University of Texas. The Governor has at no time advised the 
Legislature that he considered the appropriation excessive, or im- 
proper, but has made some objection publicly to what he considers 
its misuse, and he has vetoed the entire appropriation except one 
salary! of $3,500 per annum. The University of Texas cannot be 
maintained and supported on the salary of one man, and no deficiency 
can be based on such an item. The Attorney General has held that 
the veto was not effective, but before a test of that question can be 
had in court the fall term of the University will be passed, and the 
Governor has declared that the University of Texas will not open its 
doors until every member of the faculty to whom he objects is ex- 
pelled. 



44 Ferguson's War on the University. 

"He has charged. the faculty generally of being grafters, liars and 
traitors and in my judgment without reason. He has sought to sub- 
stitute his own will for the judgment of the Board of Regents, de- 
manding of them that members of the faculty be dismissed, even with- 
out a hearing, thus seeking to override the law. He has removed 
members of the Board of Regents without good and sufficient cause 
in order to appoint one who will carry out his own wishes, and has 
sought to substitute only his unbridled will in place of their lawful 
judgment. By Section 28 of the bill of rights no power for suspend- 
ing laws is lodged in the Governor, but he has sought to suspend them" 
and have them set aside to suit his own desires." 

a. The West Texas A. and M. Trouble. 

An explanation of Speaker Fuller's second charge is necessary. 
The Thirty-fifth Legislature appropriated $500,000 for the establish- 
ment of an A. and M. College in West Texas. The location of the 
college was left to a committee consisting of the Governor, the 
Speaker of the House, the Lieutenant Governor, the State Superin- 
tendent of Education, and the State Commissioner of Agriculture. 
Representative W. E. Thomason of Nacogdoches was Secretary of 
the Committee. From June 10 to 18 the committee, with the ex- 
ception of Lieutenant Governor Hobby, traveled over a considerable 
portion of West Texas to inspect eligible sites, Governor Ferguson 
improving the occassion, as already shown, to flay the "University 
crowd" in numerous speeches. On June 29th the committee assembled 
in the Governor 's office to make the location. All members were pres- 
ent. The committee went into executive session, and at the conclusion 
of the meeting it was announced that Abilene received three votes 
on the second ballot — which was supposed to be secret — and that the 
committee had thereupon made the decision unanimous. 

The morning papers of June 30, which carried this news, published 
also interviews with three members of the committee declaring that 
they did not vote for Abilene on the second ballot. These members 
were Lieutenant Governor Hobby, Commissioner of Agriculture Davis 
and Speaker Fuller. At the same time the Governor was quoted as 
saying that "the matter is settled and thoroughly settled"; and that 
he would not reconvene the committee. 

Much agitation followed, especially in West Texas, and this led to 
efforts on the part of members of the committee to reopen the ques- 
tion. Speaker Fuller visited the Governor on July 6 for the pur- 
pose, it was stated, of urging such a step. The result of the con- 
ference, however, was the publication of a statement in the papers 
of Sunday, July 8, signed by all of the committee, saying that 
"Regardless of what has been said or done or is contemplated to be 
hereafter done, we desire, each and every one of us, to state that said 



A Chronological Outline. 45 

location and selection of the said city of Abilene for the location of 
said college was in all things regular, honest and square, and it is 
beyond all human probability that there could have been an error. 
Consequently we do not think it prudent to reopen the question. 
. . ." All members of the committee were present at the con- 
ference issuing this statement, except Lieutenant Governor Hobby, 
who authorized Governor Ferguson to sign his name to it, after hear- 
ing the Governor read it over the telephone. 

Hopes of settlement, however, were dashed by statements from 
Messrs. Davis and Hobby that their signatures were conditional, and 
would be withdrawn if three members of the committee signed affi- 
davits that they did not vote for Abilene on the second ballot. Davis 
had already filed such an affidavit, and, before the conference on 
July 6, Hobby and Fuller had both been quoted as willing to file 
such an oath. On July 11 the Galveston- Dallas News carried a spe- 
cial report from Cold Springs that Speaker Fuller had executed his 
affidavit the day before. It was not printed. Mr. Hobby had been 
reported some time before this to have made his affidavit, but no 
copy of this has appeared in the press. The Attorney General ruled 
that three members could reconvene the committee without the call 
of the Governor, but what steps, if any, were taken to assemble be- 
tween July 11 and July 23 were not published. 

The papers of July 24 which published Speaker Fuller's call for 
the House, carried also the affidavits of Messrs. Davis, Hobby, and*. 
Fuller that they did not vote for Abilene on the second ballot. Mr. 
Davis's affidavit was dated July 6; those of Messrs. Hobby and Fuller 
were dated July 23. The last two explain why their authors signed 
the statement of July 6 : Mr. Fuller was told by the Governor that 
Mr. Hobby was anxious to sign such a statement, giving him the im- 
pression that Mr. Hobby had really voted for Abilene but did not 
wish to say so. Mr. Hobby was told by the Governor over the long 
distance telephone that he knew Fuller had voted for Abilene, and 
that this was the only way to save him further embarrassment. 

In a speech at Austin, on July 26, Governor Ferguson declared that 
he alone had the right to call the legislature in special session, and 
that Speaker Fuller's call was therefore unconstitutional. He then 
went into a circumstantial description of the meetings of the West 
Texas A. and M. Committee and of conversations with Speaker Ful- 
ler. He said that Fuller told him before the balloting that he would 
vote for Abilene on the second ballot and that he saw Fuller write 
Abilene on his second ballot ; that Fuller came to his office on July 
6 in great embarrassment and asked his advice. He advised the is- 
suance of the statement quoted above, and on Fuller's agreement to 
sign such a statement dictated it himself. He then read it to Mr. 
Hobby, in Houston, and received authority to sign it for him. The 
papers of July 28 carried an indignant denial from Mr. Fuller. 



46 Ferguson 's War on the University. 

2. The Governor Indicted by Travis County Grand Jury. 

On July 27 the Travis County Grand Jury indicted Governor Fer- 
guson and four of his appointees. There were nine bills against the 
Governor — seven for misapplication, one for embezzlement, and one 
for diversion of public funds. Six indictments were presented against 
Secretary of State C. J. Bartlett for misapplication of public funds; 
four against Banking Commissioner C. 0. Austin, and one against 
Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds C. L. Stowe on the 
same charge, and eight against Labor Commissioner C. W. Woodman 
for perjury. Indictments were also returned against former Secre- 
tary of State McKay for 'misapplication of public funds. 

The charges against Governor Ferguson concern mainly the il- 
legal use of public funds as disclosed by the legislative investigation 
in March. 

The Governor gave bond in the total sum of $13,000, and issued 
a .statement declaring himself the victim of political persecution, and 
announcing that he would be a candidate for a third term as gov- 
ernor. (See press of July 28, 1917.) 

3. Judge F. A. Williams and Others Sustain Legality of Speaker's 

CaU. 

On July 26 a group of distinguished lawyers, headed by Judge 
F. A. Williams, formerly of the Supreme Court, gave out an opinion 
upholding the right of the House to assemble as a court of impeach- 
ment without the call of the governor. (The opinion is published in 
full in state papers of July 27.) 

a. The Attorney General Concurs. 

On July 30 the press of the state announced that the Attorney 
General would, when officially requested, give an opinion sustaining 
that of Judge Williams. 

b. Quorum Assured. 

By the close of July 30 there was strong indication that a quorum 
of the House would be present on August 1 at the time set by the 
Speaker. 

4. Governor Calls Special Session. 

Therefore, about 10 o'clock at night, July 30, the Governor, after 
a long conference with his friends, issued a call for a special session 
of the legislature to assemble at the time fixed by Speaker Fuller's 
call. The purpose of the session was to consider and make additional 
appropriations for the support and maintenance of the University. 



A Chronological Outline. 47 

After reciting that he had vetoed the "main part" of the appro- 
priation made by the Legislature for the University, he went on to 
say: 

"Whereas, It has been untruthfully stated and persistently circu- 
lated that I vetoed said appropriation because I was seeking to destroy 
the State University and because I knew at the time that on account 
of the fact that the Legislature had adjourned the Legislature would 
not have an opportunity to override my said veto. 

"Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me under the 
Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, I do hereby call and con- 
voke the Thirty-fifth Legislature in a second called or special session, 
and order that same be convened in the State Capitol' at Austin, 
Texas, at 12 o'clock high noon, Wednesday, the 1st day of August, 
A. D. 1917, for the purpose of considering and making additional 
appropriation for the support and maintenance of the State Uni- 
versity for the two fiscal years beginning September 1, 1917, and 
ending August 31, 1919. I do not fear the traducers of my good 
name; and this great question of proper education will continue to 
be an issue before the people of this State.- And I am glad of 
the opportunity to let the representatives of the people in the Leg- 
islature put themselves on record, so that the voters of the State 
may weigh the official acts of their public servants on this far-reaching 
issue. 

"I trust and hope that the Legislature will pass upon this appro- 
priation within ten days, and I promise that within the succeeding 
ten days I will pass upon the appropriations, so that if my views do 
not coincide with the views of the Legislature they will ha^ve ample 
opportunity to take such action as they may deem mete and proper 
in the premises. 

"I again declare that the appropriations made by the Thirt3'-fifth 
Legislature were grossly excessive and extravagant, and I am willing 
to have the issue clearly joined, and then we will go to the people 
and let them say which servant represented their views. ' ' 

5. Mr. Hogg's Statement. 

In a statement given to the press on July 31 Will C. Hogg, Secre- 
tary of the Ex-Students' Association characterized the Governor's 
action as a subterfuge and expressed the belief that it would have 
no effect on the procedure of the House. He said : 

"When I graduated from the University of Texas I trust I did net 
thereby disfranchise myself as a good citizen ; I hope I did not thereby 
preclude my participation as a good citizen in a struggle for the com- 
mon good without fear of punishment, or hope of reward. I have no 



48 



Ferguson's War on the Univers 




political or personal axe to grind, no apologies < 028 307 450 
but in common with a large majority of our people, I am heartily 
ashamed of the prevailing political conditions in this state. 

: 'The opposition to Governor Ferguson's personal and official per- 
formances has developed into impeachment proceedings, involving his 
University attitude and action simply as incidents. Citizens who 
demand respect for the Constitution, righteous official attitude, and 
clean government, will not be misled or confused by the Governor's 
belated subterfuge in the call of a special session to consider the 
University appropriation. Undoubtedly a quorum of the House 
would have assembled under Speaker Fuller 's call, but everyone should 
welcome the Governor's special call as enabling the Legislature to 
consider the matter of the University appropriation as well as im- 
peachment charges against Governor Ferguson'. I regret particu- 
larly that the Governor did not ask the Legislature to investigate the 
University. 

"The main question, however, now before the people and the Leg- 
islature of Texas is, What measure of personal and political misdeeds 
must a Governor commit before he has indisputably demonstrated 
his personal and official unfitness for the office? 

"Due and deliberate consideration of his personal and official fitness 
as Governor, I take it, supersedes any single question of policy toward 
the. University, or any single act such as error in the location of the 
West Texas A. and M. College. 

"When the charges of personal and official misdeeds of Governor 
Ferguson are proved or disproved will be time enough to discuss 
the issue whether Ferguson or any other Governor shall boss the 
Board of Regents and thereby boss the University. It has been his 
persistent aim to escape a just retribution for his own acts as dis- 
closed in the record of his former investigation by undertaking to 
destroy the University. 

' ' A careful review of his statements and performances since under- 
taking to veto the appropriation for the University, would tend to 
convince anyone that his third-term candidacy has been constantly 
in mind to secure the vindication that the Legislature denied him. 
His audacity in announcing for a third term would excite one's ad- 
miration rather than pity, if it were not the arrogant hope of an 
individual who can do no wrong. 

"Correctly put, the question now is, Shall Ferguson continue as 
Governor? The Legislature will decide; and also, I hope, will make 
a full and thorough investigation of University affairs, its Board 
of Regents, its faculty, its student body, its comparative cost of main- 
tenance, etc. I am sure all friends of good government will continue 
to insist on the settlement of both questions. ' ' 



Holling 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



028 307 450 A 



Hollinger Corp. 
P H8.5 



